↓ Skip to main content

A systematic review of publications assessing reliability and validity of the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), 2004–2011

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, March 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
206 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
156 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A systematic review of publications assessing reliability and validity of the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), 2004–2011
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, March 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-13-49
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carol Pierannunzi, Shaohua Sean Hu, Lina Balluz

Abstract

In recent years response rates on telephone surveys have been declining. Rates for the behavioral risk factor surveillance system (BRFSS) have also declined, prompting the use of new methods of weighting and the inclusion of cell phone sampling frames. A number of scholars and researchers have conducted studies of the reliability and validity of the BRFSS estimates in the context of these changes. As the BRFSS makes changes in its methods of sampling and weighting, a review of reliability and validity studies of the BRFSS is needed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 156 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 8 5%
Canada 2 1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 145 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 36 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 20 13%
Researcher 19 12%
Student > Bachelor 11 7%
Other 25 16%
Unknown 16 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 36 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 33 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 26 17%
Psychology 11 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 3%
Other 25 16%
Unknown 21 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 January 2014.
All research outputs
#3,941,925
of 14,257,693 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#602
of 1,312 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,561
of 149,083 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,257,693 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,312 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 149,083 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them